Why Punisher 1989 was better than Punisher 2004

Before we get started, let me make it clear that I enjoy and own both films.   I've just heard a lot of people praise the Thomas Jane version while insulting and ridiculing the Dolph Lundgren version.   I have difficulty trying to see why so many people think Lundgren's version sucks, while Jayne's version is spectacular.    When I ask others why they say so, they usually give me rather conventional replies.

"He didn't have the skull on his t-shirt," is one I hear frequently and sometimes the only one I hear.   You wouldn't think that the skull on the t-shirt would be that big of a deal, but to many people it's a do or die decision.   To me it wasn't as big of a deal.   The trademark "Punisher" skull exist throughout the film as he puts it on all of the knives that he uses, and some of his other weapons.  To me it was good enough.   I'm not going to discriminate against a film because a guy doesn't have a skull on his t-shirt.

Other arguments I hear against "The Punisher" (1989) come down to the year it was made, which to me are invalid arguments.   If certain technologies weren't available in 1989, that were available in 2004, I refuse to hold that against a film.

So now the question remains, why do I feel that Punisher (1989) is an overall better film than Punisher (2004) when most of the world feels completely the opposite?

Well for many reasons.  Let's start at one.



 

Thomas Jane's version of Frank Castle/The Punisher was not as likable for me as was Dolph Lundgren's.   For one, I felt that once he became the Punisher,  Jane's version was far more rational and logical than what he should have been and that his vengeance was strictly personal.   Even though towards the end of the movie, he vows as a vigilante against crime, I never bought it.   I appreciated Lundgren's dark, insane version of Castle that has completely gone off the deep end.  The talks Lundgren's Castle had with God and the constant nightmares that he would have, seemed much more honest to me than the rationality of Jane's Castle.  It was more than just personal revenge for Lundgren's Castle, he had developed a true hatred for injustice and evil people.  

I also felt that just in general Lundgren's Castle was a more likable guy than Jane's.  At the beginning of the 2004 movie a young man loses his life because of his actions and he seems very nonchalant about it.   "He was just the son of a mobster, no big deal."    Whereas in Lundgren's version,  he has more compassion and empathy.   In Punisher (1989) Castle risk his own life to save the life of his arch rival's son.  Considering that his arch rival killed his wife and his daughters, that's pretty deep.

Frank Castle played by Thomas Jane in 2004 was very one dimensional, whereas Frank Castle played by Dolph Lundgren 1989 was multi-layered.   I appreciated that more.

 

 

 

Speaking of one dimensional characters,  Frank Castle's arch nemesis Howard Saint in Punisher (2004) was extremely one dimensional.  He was straight up unlikable, with no likable characteristics or traits.  Everyone he was involved with from his wife to his best friend Quinton seemed to mean nothing more to him, other than what they did or could do for him.  Even his vow for revenge on his son's death seemed to be more about him that it was about his son.   He was pure evil, with no remorse. 

Frank Castle's arch nemesis Gianni Franco (1989) on the other hand had those redeeming qualities that Saint lacked.  Still a scumbag, he had likable traits and characteristics.  His love for his son Tommy was sincere and genuine.  He didn't care about many, but at least he cared  for more than just himself.   During the scene when he tells Castle that he didn't mean to kill his wife and his daughters, that he meant to only kill him and if he could go back in time and take it back, he would...I believed every word of it.   Howard Saint struck me as the type of guy that would've killed Castle's whole family because he had a vendetta against him. (Oh wait, that's exactly what happened in Punisher (2004).)   Gianni Franco on the other hand wasn't that sadistic.  He wanted to kill Castle to get him out of his way, but he was not the type of person to kill an innocent woman and he was certainly not the type to kill two innocent children.   Franco was a much more likable, realistic and fun character to analyze, than was Saint.

 

 

 

Looking at the supporting characters, this area is more of a tie.  In Punisher (1989) I felt that the character of Sam Leary wasn't really needed and rather forgettable as she was underused and underutilized.  On the same hand though, I really liked the character of Jake Berkowitz, his background story with Castle, and I would have liked to have seen that element of the story more developed.

If you want to know the major difference between films of the late 70's through the mid 90's and films mid 90's post, that is it.   Films of yesterday had underdeveloped subplots and lacked in detail.  Films of today have an overabundance of detail, and are developed in too much depth.  Give us enough story to make us invest, but not so much to where we can completely eliminate our own imagination.   There is a fine balance to be met.

With that said, the Berkowitz character was very real and very genuine to me.  Frank Castle was his best friend, someone that he loved and cared about very much.   He wanted to help him, and felt a personal guilt for being unable to.   

In the 2004 version,  I never understood Joan's involvement.  I never resonated with her why she felt it was so important to get involved and why she took on personal responsibility.   There was nothing about that character that said to me why she would feel so strongly about wanting to try and keep Castle from taking vengeance.    What I did appreciate about the 2004 version, was the comradery that was developed between Castle and Dave, Bumpo and Joan.  The scene where Castle questions the three of them on why they risked their own lives for him, when they owed him nothing and Dave replied, "Because you're one of us," was very powerful to me.

Shake in Punisher (1989) was a bit of an eccentric character, but I at least understood and bought his personal investment.  He was Castle's eyes and ears, giving him information and he has enough decency about him to want to do the right thing when it mattered.  

Overall I like both sets of characters, but still have to go with (1989) over (2004) because Berkowitz's investment in Castle was very genuine, raw and sincere whereas Joan's investment seemed out of place and dishonest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I'm going to gripe on one dimensional characters.   John Saint in Punisher (2004) was a very one dimensional, unlikable character.   He was already molded.  He was going to grow up to be an evil, sick twisted sadistic gangster, just like his dad.  No questions asked, all hope was lost.    Tommy Franco, Punisher (1989) on the other hand still had hope left.  He was a genuinely good kid with a heart that had not yet been corrupted.   The last line that Castle says in the movie is to Tommy.  "You're a good boy Tommy. Grow up to be a good man, cause if you don't, I'll be waiting."   Very powerful line.  It left Tommy with the choice that he can either remain pure or he can become corrupt like his father.   

 

 

Lady Tanaka

Before anyone jumps on my back, I do realize that Lady Tanaka in Punisher (1989) was a very one dimensional character herself.   Slitting her own brother's throat to be accepted into the Yakuza was in itself enough action to deem her as completely unlikable.  I have to say that I liked it though because not only was she unlikable, she was hateable.    Whereas I disliked Howard Saint, I never found myself outright hating him.   Which is another reason why I like Punisher (1989) over Punisher(2004). 

 

THE ENDING

Punisher (2004) had a pretty kickass epic ending.  I'll give it that.   The cars blowing up and making the image of the skull was pretty God damned glorious, but Punisher (1989) had an ending that to this day is hard to top.   The sense of urgency is magnificent.  Lady Tanaka has a knife to Tommy's throat, you think Gianni Franco is about to kill himself so that she won't kill Tommy and suddenly as all hope seems lost, Castle comes barging through the wall, throws his knife and kills Tanaka.   I'll admit that throwing a knife through someone's skull, especially at the angle he threw it is very unrealistic.  However, it was still freaking cool!




Overall I just feel that Punisher (1989) was a better story will better developed and more realistic characters.   It's not that I didn't like Punisher (2004) because I did.  I liked it very much matter of fact.  I just like Punisher (1989) better.


One more thing I want to say about Punisher (2004).....

Frank Castle Senior

   I really liked the character of Frank Castle Senior and I understand that he needed to die off early in the film for story development, but I would have liked to have seen him been more a part of the story.   I think his character could have been used in other ways, better ways.